Denis,
On 06/11/2015 11:01, denis wrote:
Hi Brian
On 06/11/2015 11:29, Brian Nisbet wrote:
Denis,
On 05/11/2015 19:40, ripede...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
HI all
I am going to have one last go at solving this problem. I challenge
anyone/everyone to tell me why this is such a stupid idea, technically
impossible to do, won't solve any of the issues partially or fully. Then
I can shut up about it and go away. If you can't condemn the idea then
support it. Lets fix this issue once and for all, stop this endless
discussion about rogue ROUTE objects and get on with life.
So here is my 4 step proposal that I believe could be implemented within
a month. If we implemented this you can be sure that all ROUTE objects
in the RIPE Database were created with the knowledge and approval of the
related resource holders. I believe that is the desired goal.
Thanks for this. I think I would agree with Gert's comments about Step 4
and the timings, but that's implementation detail to a certain extent.
It and other timings would be something to discuss with the NCC.
The big, procedural, question to get this moved along is whether this is
AA-WG or DB-WG. To be clear, I'm very happy to work with you on it
either way. I'm going to have a quick chat with the DB-WG chairs and we
can crank up the PDP as soon as possible, if that's ok with you?
That sounds like a great idea :)
DB wish to take this, which is sensible because it's a DB proposal. So
do you want to sent a mail to the list and/or chairs and kick this off
there? Copying AA-WG would be useful on the discussion, I think.
Brian
